That’s a good point.  Tide of Iron is an incredibly HUGE game, yet I can’t think of a single glitch in it.  The original boards were warped, but that’s not a playtest issue.  And the final release is beautiful, and despite the mass of rules, cards, etc, seems very error free.

Most of the criticisms regarding balance issues with games like Doom and Descent have focused on scenarios...not the game system. The game mechanics and processes behind the scenarios for these two games work very well.

The problem with the scenarios for these games is they are very “Number of Players” specific. The more Heroes tromping around in Descent, the easier the game.

Peace

despite the mass of rules, cards, etc, seems very error free.

Well, except for the whole concealment thing ... the cards for that are wrong due to an (apparent) last-minute change in the rules which didn’t get folded into the cards. And while I’ve been having fun with Tide of Iron, and clearly there have been some improvements, I wouldn’t say I have a lot of faith in FFG’s playtesting process just yet. Certainly several scenarios that I’ve played seem pretty badly unbalanced. Nothing nearly on the scale of the catastrophic playbalance issues with Doom, so things have definitely gotten better, but there is still plenty of work to do. ToI is arguably better than Memoir ‘44 on the playbalance front, but that’s a very low bar and ToI games take a lot longer than M’44 so arguably should be a lot better, and I’m not sure I’m willing to say that.

I’d certainly feel a lot better about it if FFG could admit that there were some significant balance and scaling problems with the Doom scenarios. As long as their spin on these fairly obvious problems is that it was just mismatched player expectations, I don’t have a lot of optimism that things will improve.

I’d always thought that the ‘poster child’ for the issue raised in the original question was Twilight Imperium III.  I’ve heard multiple folks opine that the game only became balanced and fun after the Shattered Empire expansion was released.

I’m very pleased to hear FFG’s using external blind playtesting groups, though - they are one of the few who actually do it, and I think the results are starting to show.  Recent FFG releases seem to have that ‘polish’ that was missing earlier.

It actually makes me less leery about buying another monster box from FFG - my experience with TI3 had kind of soured me on the concept…

pk

It would be nice to get a name to go along with the answers.  I’m guessing you have an individual you contact with the questions.

Good point, Brent—I’ll add that in for items that don’t involve Jay or Zev. Oh, heck, I’ll add their names as well…

Eric

I think that any company that publishes asymmetrical games will always take flak.  Asymmetrical games are inherently unbalanced either early or late in the game discovery process because at different levels of expertise the balance changes. You can load the game up with self balancing mechanics but after awhile that produces a muddy malaise that gets fairly uninteresting. Admittedly all the last minute fine tuning of balance issues does increase the odds of getting something wrong in the rulebook.

But I think the play balance testing of FFG is comparable to other publishers of asymmetrical games.

and to the issue with “Doom” (a game I don’t even like for other reasons), I accept that they were trying to model the video game where you have to play a scenario 20 times before you get lucky and get through it and save your game (as such it’s not far off).

and to the issue with “Doom” (a game I don’t even like for other reasons), I accept that they were trying to model the video game where you
have to play a scenario 20 times before you get lucky and get through it and save your game (as such it’s not far off).

The thing is, Doom III (which was the license after all) isn’t really like that. Until you get to the big bosses, the levels aren’t that hard. I didn’t have to save and re-do levels very often, and was able to finish the game without too much repetition, and I’m not exactly a FPS junkie.

Anyway, if that really was the goal, to make a game that was 6-8 hours long and winnable only one in 20 times for the Marines, some minimal outside playtesting should have given them some feedback that this probably wasn’t the way to go for a boardgame.

Regardless, I don’t really think that was the design objective. I think it was a combination of erring in favor of gratuitous difficulty combined with no reasonable attempt to scale the game properly to the number of players. With 3 players (2 Marines), the (base) game is excessively difficult but you can envision the Marines winning from time to time. Add a fourth player, though, and it becomes completely impossible, because you’ve increased the monsters by 33% (roughly) but given the Marines no additional ammo or equipment to cope with them.

Doom really was a great little system that was killed by balance issues in the game.

Doom, TI III, and World of Warcraft all had a very strange element that really does make you wonder if they playtested the game.

(WoW had the final battle thing. If you got into a final battle, it could take hours to resolve. )

With Doom I didn’t mind the balance so much as the fact that it wasn’t fun to run out of ammo. It was perhaps the first simulation of a first-person-whack-things-with-a-wrench. IT was hard to even keep enough ammo in your pistol.

The playtester groups have helped a lot. Descent and Tide of Iron are quite remarkable.

This is what I want FFG to hear, loud and clear:

Is there a game here? I ask that question every time I play the majority of their games. Why?

Because while it is nice to have all these bells and whistles, in the end, the game players can simply be taken out by the other gamers if the desire is there. And, while this is true for many games, it needs to be changed for games in which the game can take 8 hours to finish.

Otherwise, why not just play Diplomacy? If you can’t elevate yourself beyond player elimination as one means to victory, I suggest you make your games play faster… even if that means getting rid of some of your bells and whistles.

I personally will not buy a FFG product in the big box category because you already blew your chance with me on so many occasions. Ditto for now dead Eagle Games.

When you put out a big box and want $50-$80 for it and you still have playtest issues on top of usually being gang tackle friendly, I am no longer interested in your company’s big box products.

I tried the Marvel title recently. It took me 45 minutes to hit something. We are talking about a super heroes game here, right? There was a 12 year old that quit playing it because it didn’t hold his attention. You make things more complex than they need to be.

While I appreciate an immersive quality as much as the next guy, if you can’t accomplish it in an easy-to-learn and quick-to-play manner, you are useless because you have already lost that by a 40 minute rules explanation.

Too little, too late. Your company should be ashamed of itself, not proud. Unless it wants to change its name to Fantasy Flight Sims.

Doom, TI III, and World of Warcraft all had a very strange element that really does make you wonder if they playtested the game.

(WoW had the final battle thing. If you got into a final battle, it could take hours to resolve. )

Here is the thing about game design: There is rarely a single correct answer, there are usually multiple answers that different people like.  Part of playtesting involves collecting different people’s opinons and then deciding what to do. (This is why the FFG playtest program uses written questionaires instead of just having a discussion after a game)

WoW:tBG is a perfect example.  Some of the playtesters, such as myself, absoluted hated the final PvP.  Other playtesters saw the final PvP as the point of the entire game and enjoyed it greatly.

Which group was correct? Both and neither, it all depends on who plays the game. (This is also why there are 2 optional rules in WoW that change PvP combat and the end game condition)

Mike Z

Odd. I can’t imagine people LIKING the basic PvP in World of Warcraft.

I guess part of the problem is the playtesters. The pool of playtesters is still relatively small compared to the hooting and hollering masses. It is entirely possible that with a small sample size, you’ll pick the unfavorable choice.

The pool of playtesters is still relatively small compared to the hooting and hollering masses.

It is also a problem with the public. Those that find fault tend to speak the loudest…